1. law, govt and politics
2. law enforcement
3. police

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides Series
No. 9
Graffiti
Deborah Lamm Weisel
w
ps
co
.
ww
.us
ov
j.g
o
d
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides Series
Guide No. 9
Graffiti
Deborah Lamm Weisel
This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number
1999-CK-WX-K004 awarded by the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained
herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the
official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. References
to specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an
endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather,
the references are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues.
© 2009 Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, Inc. The U.S. Department
of Justice reserves a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license to
reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and authorize others to use, this
publication for Federal Government purposes. This publication may be
freely distributed and used for noncommercial and educational purposes.
The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of May 2009.
Given that URLs and web sites are in constant flux, neither the author nor
the COPS Office can vouch for their current validity.
www.cops.usdoj.gov
ISBN: 1-932582-08-8
August 2004
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series
About the Problem-Specific
Guide Series
The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about how
police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder
problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the
overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or
handling specific incidents. Neither do they cover all of the
technical details about how to implement specific responses. The
guides are written for police—of whatever rank or assignment—
who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides
will be most useful to officers who:
•
Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles and
methods. The guides are not primers in problem-oriented
policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to
focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem,
and means to assess the results of a problem-oriented policing
project. They are designed to help police decide how best to
analyze and address a problem they have already identified.
(A companion series of Problem-Solving Tools guides has been
produced to aid in various aspects of problem analysis and
assessment.)
•
Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the
complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend
perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding to
it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you
design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your
community. You should not blindly adopt the responses others
have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to
your local situation. What is true in one place may not be true
elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere.
i
ii
Graffiti
•
Are willing to consider new ways of doing police
business. The guides describe responses that other police
departments have used or that researchers have tested.
While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your
particular problem, they should help give a broader view of
the kinds of things you could do. You may think you cannot
implement some of these responses in your jurisdiction,
but perhaps you can. In many places, when police have
discovered a more effective response, they have succeeded
in having laws and policies changed, improving the response
to the problem. (A companion series of Response Guides has
been produced to help you understand how commonly-used
police responses work on a variety of problems.)
•
Understand the value and the limits of research
knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful
research is available to the police; for other problems,
little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series
summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate
the need for more research on that particular problem.
Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to
all the questions you might have about the problem. The
research may help get you started in designing your own
responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This
will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local
problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not
every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every
point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would
have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references
listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most
heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on
the subject.
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series
•
Are willing to work with others to find effective solutions
to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of
the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently
implement them in partnership with other responsible private
and public bodies including other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, private businesses, public utilities,
community groups, and individual citizens. An effective
problem-solver must know how to forge genuine partnerships
with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort
in making these partnerships work. Each guide identifies
particular individuals or groups in the community with whom
police might work to improve the overall response to that
problem. Thorough analysis of problems often reveals that
individuals and groups other than the police are in a stronger
position to address problems and that police ought to shift
some greater responsibility to them to do so. Response Guide
No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety
Problems, provides further discussion of this topic.
The COPS Office defines community policing as “a philosophy
that promotes organizational strategies, which support the
systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques,
to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to
public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime.”
These guides emphasize problem-solving and police-community
partnerships in the context of addressing specific public safety
problems. For the most part, the organizational strategies that can
facilitate problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary
considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of these
guides.
iii
iv
Graffiti
These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices
in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws,
customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is
apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems.
In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is
important that police be aware of research and successful practices
beyond the borders of their own countries.
Each guide is informed by a thorough review of the research
literature and reported police practice, and each guide is
anonymously peer-reviewed by a line police officer, a police
executive and a researcher prior to publication. The review process
is independently managed by the COPS Office, which solicits the
reviews.
The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide
feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s
experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have
effectively addressed a problem using responses not considered in
these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit
others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you
wish to provide feedback and share your experiences it should be
sent via e-mail to [email protected].
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series
For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit the
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www.popcenter.org.
This website offers free online access to:
• The Problem-Specific Guides series
• The companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools
series
• Special publications on crime analysis and on policing terrorism
• Instructional information about problem-oriented policing and
related topics
• An interactive problem-oriented policing training exercise
• An interactive Problem Analysis Module
• Online access to important police research and practices
• Information about problem-oriented policing conferences and
award programs.
v
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are produced by the
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, whose officers are Michael
S. Scott (Director), Ronald V. Clarke (Associate Director) and
Graeme R. Newman (Associate Director). While each guide has a
primary author, other project team members, COPS Office staff and
anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing
text, recommending research and offering suggestions on matters of
format and style.
The project team that developed the guide series comprised Herman
Goldstein (University of Wisconsin Law School), Ronald V. Clarke
(Rutgers University), John E. Eck (University of Cincinnati),
Michael S. Scott (University of Wisconsin Law School), Rana
Sampson (Police Consultant), and Deborah Lamm Weisel (North
Carolina State University.)
Members of the San Diego; National City, California; and
Savannah, Georgia police departments provided feedback on the
guides’ format and style in the early stages of the project.
Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano, and Nancy Leach oversaw the project
for the COPS Office and research for the guides was conducted
at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University by Phyllis
Schultze. Suzanne Fregly edited this guide.
vii
Contents
contents
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
The Problem of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Factors Contributing to Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Types of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Common Targets and Locations of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Motives of Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Characteristics and Patterns of Graffiti Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Asking Key Questions About Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Victims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Amount of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Types of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Locations/Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Reducing Rewards to Offenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increasing the Risk of Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increasing the Difficulty of Offending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Responses With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
20
24
27
30
Appendix: Summary of Responses to Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
ix
The Problem of Graffiti
1
The Problem of Graffiti
This guide addresses effective responses to the problem of
graffiti–the wide range of markings, etchings and paintings that
deface public or private property.§ In recent decades, graffiti has
become an extensive problem, spreading from the largest cities
to other locales. Despite the common association of graffiti with
gangs, graffiti is widely found in jurisdictions of all sizes, and
graffiti offenders are by no means limited to gangs.
Because of its rising prevalence in many areas–and the high costs
typically associated with cleanup and prevention–graffiti is often
viewed as a persistent, if not an intractable, problem. Few graffiti
offenders are apprehended, and some change their methods and
locations in response to possible apprehension and cleanups.
As with most forms of vandalism, graffiti is not routinely
reported to police. Many people think that graffiti is not a
police or “real crime” problem, or that the police can do little
about it. Because graffiti is not routinely reported to police
or other agencies, its true scope is unknown. But graffiti has
become a major concern, and the mass media, including movies
and websites glamorizing or promoting graffiti as an acceptable
form of urban street art, have contributed to its spread.
Although graffiti is a common problem, its intensity varies
substantially from place to place. While a single incident of
graffiti does not seem serious, graffiti has a serious cumulative
effect; its initial appearance in a location appears to attract more
graffiti. Local graffiti patterns appear to emerge over time, thus
graffiti takes distinctive forms, is found in different locations,
and may be associated with varying motives of graffiti offenders.
These varying attributes offer important clues to the control and
prevention of graffiti.
§Although graffiti is also found within
public or private property (such as in
schools), this guide primarily addresses
graffiti in places open to public view.
2
Graffiti
For many people, graffiti’s presence suggests the government’s
failure to protect citizens and control lawbreakers. There are huge
public costs associated with graffiti; an estimated $12 billion a
year is spent cleaning up graffiti in the United States. Graffiti
contributes to lost revenue associated with reduced ridership on
transit systems, reduced retail sales, and declines in property value.
In addition, graffiti generates the perception of blight and heightens
fear of gang activity.
Kip Kellogg
Graffiti offenders risk injury by placing graffiti on
places such as this railroad bridge spanning a river.
The Problem of Graffiti
Related Problems
Graffiti is not an isolated problem. It is often related to other crime
and disorder problems, including:
• Public disorder, such as littering, public urination, and loitering
• Shoplifting of materials needed for graffiti, such as paint and
markers1
• Gangs and gang violence, as gang graffiti conveys threats and
identifies turf boundaries
• Property destruction, such as broken windows or slashed bus or
train seats.
Factors Contributing to Graffiti
Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will
help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good
effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select
appropriate responses.
Types of Graffiti
There are different types of graffiti. The major types include:
• Gang graffiti, often used by gangs to mark turf or convey threats
of violence, and sometimes copycat graffiti, which mimics gang
graffiti
• Tagger graffiti, ranging from high-volume simple hits to complex
street art
• Conventional graffiti, often isolated or spontaneous acts of
“youthful exuberance,” but sometimes malicious or vindictive
• Ideological graffiti, such as political or hate graffiti, which
conveys political messages or racial, religious, or ethnic slurs.
3
4
Graffiti
Bob Morris
§A count in a San Diego area with a
lot of graffiti showed that about 50
percent was gang graffiti, 40 percent
was tagger graffiti, and 10 percent was
non-group graffiti (San Diego Police
Department 2000). In nearby Chula
Vista (California), only 19 percent of
graffiti was gang-related (Chula Vista
Police Department 1999). Although
the counting methods likely differ, these
proportions suggest how the breakdown
of types of graffiti varies from one
jurisdiction to another.
Gang graffiti marks territory and conveys threats.
In areas where graffiti is prevalent, gang and tagger graffiti are the
most common types found. While other forms of graffiti may be
troublesome, they typically are not as widespread. The proportion
of graffiti attributable to differing motives varies widely from one
jurisdiction to another.§ The major types of graffiti are discussed
later.
Common Targets and Locations of Graffiti
Graffiti typically is placed on public property, or private property
adjacent to public space. It is commonly found in transportation
systems–on inner and outer sides of trains, subways and buses,
and in transit stations and shelters. It is also commonly found on
vehicles; walls facing streets; street, freeway and traffic signs; statues
and monuments; and bridges. In addition, it appears on vending
machines, park benches, utility poles, utility boxes, billboards, trees,
streets, sidewalks, parking garages, schools, business and residence
walls, garages, fences, and sheds. In short, graffiti appears almost
any place open to public view.
The Problem of Graffiti
5
Kip Kellogg
§Most sources suggest that paint-over
colors should closely match, rather than
contrast with, the base. Contrasting
paint-overs are presumed to attract or
challenge graffiti offenders to repaint
their graffiti; the painted-over area
provides a canvass to frame new graffiti.
Graffiti is commonly found in transportation systems,
such as on the side of this railroad car.
Graffiti tends to recur in some locations. In fact, areas where graffiti
has been painted over–especially with contrasting colors–may be a
magnet to be revandalized.§ Some offenders are highly tenacious–
conducting a psychological battle with authorities or owners for
their claim over an area or specific location. Such tenacity appears
to be related to an escalating defiance of authority.
Graffiti locations are often characterized by the absence of anyone
with direct responsibility for the area. This includes public areas,
schools, vacant buildings,2 and buildings with absentee landlords.
Offenders also target locations with poor lighting and little
oversight by police or security personnel.
6
Graffiti
Some targets and locations appear particularly vulnerable to graffiti:
• Easy-to-reach targets, such as signs
• Particularly hard-to-reach locations, such as freeway overpasses
• Highly visible locations, such as building walls
• Locations where a wall or fence is the primary security, and
where there are few windows, employees, or passersby
• Locations where oversight is cyclical during the day or week, or
where people are intimidated by graffiti offenders
• Mobile targets, such as trains or buses, which generate wide
exposure for the graffiti
• Places where gang members congregate–taverns, bowling alleys,
convenience store parking lots, and residential developments
with many children or youth.
Kip Kellogg
Graffiti often appears in hard-to-reach yet highly visible locations, such as
on the upper-story windows of this warehouse.
The Problem of Graffiti
In addition, two types of surfaces attract graffiti:
• Light-colored surfaces. Dark surfaces do not generally attract as
much graffiti, but can be marred with light-colored paint.
• Large and plain surfaces. Surfaces without windows or doors
may be appealing for large-scale projects. Smooth surfaces
especially attract offenders who use felt-tip markers.
Motives of Offenders
While making graffiti does not offer material reward to offenders,
contrary to public opinion, it does have meaning. Rather than
being a senseless destruction of property, graffiti fulfills certain
psychological needs, including providing excitement and action,
a sense of control, and an element of risk. The different types
of graffiti are associated with different motives, although these
drives may overlap.§ Distinguishing between types of graffiti and
associated motives is a critical step for developing an effective
response.
Historically, much conventional graffiti has represented a youthful
“rite of passage”–part of a phase of experimental behavior. Such
graffiti is usually spontaneous and not malicious in nature; indeed,
spontaneous graffiti has often been characterized as play, adventure,
or exuberance. Spontaneous graffiti may reflect local traditions and
appear on "fair targets" such as abandoned buildings or schools.
Communities have often tolerated such graffiti.
The motives for some types of conventional graffiti may include
anger and hostility toward society, and the vandalism thus fulfills
some personal psychological need.3 The graffiti may arise from
boredom, despair, resentment, failure, and/or frustration, in which
case it may be vindictive or malicious.
A related type of graffiti is ideological. Ideological graffiti expresses
hostility or a grievance–often quite explicitly. Such graffiti is usually
easily identified by its content, reflecting a political, religious,
ethnic, or other bias. Offenders may strategically target certain
locations to further the message.
§The description of types of graffiti
7
and motives of graffiti offenders draws
from broader typologies and motives
associated with vandalism. See, for
example, Coffield (1991) and Cohen
(1973).
8
Graffiti
§This includes complex, artistic graffiti
known as masterpieces.
§§Taggers in California used climbing
equipment to tag freeway overpasses,
knowing their tags would be highly
visible for extended periods, until the
road was shut down for paint-overs
(Beatty 1990). Hard-to-reach places
also provide an element of danger
of apprehension or physical risk,
contributing to the vandal’s reputation.
In contrast to conventional and ideological graffiti, the primary
motive for gang graffiti is tactical; the graffiti serves as a public
form of communication–to mark turf, convey threats, or boast of
achievements.4
Some tagger graffiti may involve creative expression, providing
a source of great pride in the creation of complex works of art.
Most taggers seek notoriety and recognition of their graffiti–they
attach status to having their work seen. Thus, prolonged visibility
due to the sheer volume, scale and complexity of the graffiti,§ and
placement of the graffiti in hard-to-reach places§§ or in transit
systems, enhance the vandal's satisfaction.5 Because recognition is
important, the tagger tends to express the same motif–the graffiti’s
style and content are replicated over and over again, becoming the
tagger’s unique signature.
Participation in graffiti is often inadvertently encouraged through
police contacts, media attention and public recognition of it
through advertising or art displays–all can serve to enhance the
offender’s reputation or notoriety.6
The Problem of Graffiti
9
Types of Graffiti and Associated Motives
Type of Graffiti
Features
Gang§
•
Gang name or symbol, including
hand signs
Gang member name(s) or
nickname(s), or sometimes a rollcall listing of members
Numbers§§
Distinctive, stylized alphabets§§§
Key visible locations
Enemy names and symbols, or
allies’ names
•
•
•
•
•
High-volume, accessible locations
High-visibility, hard-to-reach
locations
• May be stylized but simple name
or nickname tag or symbols§§§§§
• Tenacious (keep retagging)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Common Tagger§§§§
Motives
•
•
Mark turf
Threaten violence
Boast of achievements
Honor the slain
Insult/taunt other
gangs
Notoriety or prestige
Defiance of authority
Artistic Tagger
•
Colorful and complex pictures
known as masterpieces or pieces
•
Artistic prestige or
recognition
Conventional
Graffiti: Spontaneous
•
Sporadic episodes or isolated
incidents
•
•
•
•
Play
Rite of passage
Excitement
Impulsive
Conventional
Graffiti: Malicious or
Vindictive
•
Sporadic, isolated or systematic
incidents
•
•
•
•
•
Anger
Boredom
Resentment
Failure
Despair
Ideological
•
•
•
Offensive content or symbols
Racial, ethnic or religious slurs
Specific targets, such as
synagogues
• Highly legible
• Slogans
•
•
•
•
•
Anger
Hate
Political
Hostility
Defiance
§Copycat graffiti looks like gang
graffiti and may be the work of
gang wanna-bes or youths seeking
excitement.
§§Offenders commonly use
numbers as code in gang graffiti.
A number may represent the
corresponding position in the
alphabet (e.g., 13 = M, for the
Mexican Mafia), or represent a
penal or police radio code.
§§§Stylized alphabets include
bubble letters, block letters,
backwards letters, and Old
English script.
§§§§Tagbangers, a derivative
of tagging crews and gangs, are
characterized by competition with
other crews. Thus crossed-out tags
are features of their graffiti.
§§§§§The single-line writing of
a name is usually known as a tag,
while slightly more complex tags,
including those with two colors
or bubble letters, are known as
throw-ups.
10
Graffiti
Characteristics and Patterns of Graffiti Offenders
Graffiti offenders are typically young and male. In one study, most
offenders were ages 15 to 23; many of the offenders were students.
Offenders may typically be male, inner-city blacks and Latinos, but
female, as well as white and Asian, participation is growing.7 The
profile clearly does not apply in some places where the population is
predominantly white. Tagging is not restricted by class lines.
In Sydney, Australia, graffiti offenders, while mostly boys, include
girls; offenders are typically ages 13 to 17.8 In San Diego, all the
taggers identified within a two-mile area were male, and 72 percent
were 16 or younger.9
Bob Morris
Young male gang members may engage in a substantial amount of
graffiti.
The Problem of Graffiti
Graffiti offenders typically operate in groups, with perhaps 15 to
20 percent operating alone.10 In addition to the varying motives
for differing types of graffiti, peer pressure, boredom, lack of
supervision, lack of activities, low academic achievement, and youth
unemployment contribute to participation in graffiti.
Graffiti offenders often use spray paint, although they may also
produce graffiti with large markers or by etching, the latter
especially on glass surfaces.§ Spray paint is widely available, easily
concealed, easily and quickly used on a variety of surfaces, and
available in different colors with different nozzles to change line
widths–these factors make spray paint suitable for a range of
offenders.§§
The making of graffiti is characterized by anonymity–hence
relative safety from detection and apprehension. Most offenders
work quickly, when few people are around. Graffiti predominantly
occurs late on weekend nights, though there is little systematic
evidence about this. In British transit studies, graffiti incidents
typically occurred in off-peak or non-rush hours.11 In Bridgeport,
Connecticut, graffiti incidents were concentrated from 5 p.m. to
4 a.m. Thursdays through Sundays.12 A San Diego study showed
that routes leading away from schools were hit more frequently,
suggesting a concentration in after-school hours Monday through
Friday. Offenders tagged school walls daily.13
There is widespread concern that participation in graffiti may be
an initial or gateway offense from which offenders may graduate
to more sophisticated or harmful crimes. Graffiti is sometimes
associated with truancy, and can involve drug and/or alcohol use.
Graffiti offenders who operate as members of gangs or crews may
also engage in fighting.
11
§Other tools for graffiti include shoe
polish, rocks, razors, glass cutters, and
glass etching fluid. Glass etching fluids
include acids, such as Etch Bath and
Armour Etch, developed as hobby
products for decorating glass. Vandals
squirt or rub the acids onto glass.
§§Vandals may adapt or modify tools and
practices to cleaning methods. In New
York City, when transit system personnel
used paint solvents to remove graffiti,
offenders adapted by spraying a surface
with epoxy, writing their graffiti and then
coating the surface with shellac, which
proved very difficult to remove.
Understanding Your Local Problem
Understanding Your Local Problem
You must combine the basic facts provided above with a more
specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local
problem helps in designing a more effective response strategy.
Asking Key Questions About Graffiti
The following are some critical questions you should ask in
analyzing your particular problem of graffiti, even if the answers are
not always readily available. If you fail to answer these questions,
you may select the wrong response.
Victims
•
•
Whom does the graffiti directly victimize (e.g., homeowners,
apartment managers, business owners, transit systems, utilities,
public works, others)?
Whom does the graffiti indirectly affect (e.g., people who see
the graffiti)? How fearful are these people? What activities does
graffiti affect (e.g., shopping, use of recreational areas and public
transit)? (Community or other surveys may be necessary to
answer these questions.)
Amount of Graffiti
•
•
•
•
•
How much graffiti is there? (Visual surveys are necessary to
answer questions about the amount of graffiti.)
How many individual tags or separate pieces of graffiti are there?
How big is the graffiti (e.g., in square feet)?
How many graffiti locations are there?
How many graffiti-related calls for service, incident reports, or
hotline reports are there?
13
14
Graffiti
Types of Graffiti
•
§See Otto, Maly, and Schismenos
(2000) for more information about this
technology, as used in Akron, Ohio.
•
§§Maps of graffiti have been used to map
gang violence and gang territory. See,
for example, Kennedy, Braga, and Piehl
(1997).
•
•
•
•
Are there different types of graffiti? How many of each type?
What are the content and unique characteristics of the graffiti?
(Some agencies photograph or videotape graffiti to create an
intelligence database noting key characteristics, to link graffiti to
§
chronic offenders.)
What appear to be the motives for the graffiti?
Is the graffiti simple or complex? Small or large? Single-colored
or multicolored?
Is the graffiti isolated or grouped?
What do offenders use to make the graffiti (e.g., spray paint,
marking pens, etching devices)?
Locations/Times
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Where does the graffiti occur? (Maps of graffiti can be
particularly illuminating, revealing its distribution across a large
§§
area. See Figure 1.)
What are the specific locations where the graffiti occurs (e.g.,
addresses or, more precisely, Global Positioning System locations
for sites without addresses, such as in parks or along railroad
tracks)?
How close is the graffiti to graffiti-generators such as schools?
What are the characteristics of the locations in which graffiti
is prevalent? Are the locations residences, schools? Are they
close to stores–what type, with what hours–or bus stops–what
running times?
What are the characteristics of graffiti targets? Are the targets
signs, walls, fences, buses, trains?
What are the physical environment’s characteristics, including
lighting, access, roads, surface types, and other relevant factors?
When does the graffiti occur? Time of day? (using last known
graffiti-free time)? Day of week?
Do the peak times correspond with other events?
Understanding Your Local Problem
15
San Diego Police Department
"TAGGER" Calls for Service in Central Division
Jan 1 through Jun 30, 2000
Fig. 1. Map showing locations of graffiti.
Offenders
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What are the offenders’ characteristics (e.g., age, gender,
student)?
Where do the offenders live, go to school, or work? How do
these locations correspond to graffiti locations and/or police
contacts?§
What is the pattern of offending? For example, is the graffiti
spontaneous or planned, intermittent or regular?
What are the offenders’ motives? (Offenders can be interviewed
to collect this information. Undercover investigations, stings,
surveillance, and graffiti content analysis can reveal more about
offenders’ practices.§§)
Are offenders lone operators or part of a group?
Does drug and/or alcohol use contribute to graffiti?
Is graffiti associated with other violations, such as truancy?
§Photographs of offenders and their
address information can also be linked
to maps.
§§Police in some cities have posed as film
crews, interviewing taggers about their
practices.
16
Graffiti
Measuring Your Effectiveness
§Because many anti-graffiti strategies are
quite expensive, a cost-benefit analysis
will provide a baseline measure of
benefits associated with specific costs of
different strategies.
Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts
have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses
if they are not producing the intended results. You should take
measures of your problem before you implement responses, to
determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement
them, to determine whether they have been effective. All measures
should be taken in both the target area and the surrounding area.
(For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the
companion guide to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An
Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.)
Research shows that graffiti can be substantially reduced, and
sometimes eliminated. The following are potentially useful
measures of the effectiveness of responses to graffiti. To track
possible displacement, such measures should be routine:
• Amount or size of graffiti
• Number and type of graffiti locations
• Content and type of graffiti
• Length of time graffiti-prone surfaces stay clean
• Public fear and perceptions about the amount of graffiti (may
be assessed through surveys of citizens, changes in use of public
space and transit systems, changes in retail sales, and other
indirect measures).
Some jurisdictions track the numbers of arrests made, gallons of
paint applied or square feet covered, amount of graffiti removed, or
money spent on graffiti eradication;14 these measures indicate how
much effort has been put into the anti-graffiti initiative, but they do
not tell you if the amount or nature of graffiti has changed in any
way.§ You should choose measures based on the responses chosen;
for example, if paint sales are limited, you should place more
emphasis on tracking the type of graffiti tool used. Tools do change;
for example, some offenders have begun using glass etching fluid.
Understanding Your Local Problem
It is widely believed that graffiti is easily displaced,§ but evidence of
such displacement is scant. The notion that graffiti is an intractable
problem that is easily displaced has been fueled by haphazard and
piecemeal crime prevention measures.15 Useful measures of graffiti
will assess the extent to which graffiti is reduced or moved to
different locations, or reflect a change in offenders’ tactics. While
graffiti offenders can be persistent and adaptive, there is no reason
to assume that displacement will be complete; indeed, successful
responses may have a widespread effect.
17
§The response to graffiti in the New
York subway system resulted in some
reported displacement to buses, garbage
trucks, walls, and other objects in the
city (Butterfield 1988; Coffield 1991).
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better
understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have
analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for
measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to
address the problem.
The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas
for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn
from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of
these strategies may apply to your community’s problem. It is
critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that
you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most
cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several
different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom
effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself
to considering what police can do: give careful consideration to
who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem
and can help police better respond to it.
Graffiti is not solely a police problem. The police role should be
one of support and assistance. Effective responses to graffiti may
combine management practices, design and maintenance, and
involve the general public, individual victims, criminal justice
officials such as prosecutors and judges, and others. Responses to
graffiti should be comprehensive and coordinated, while costs and
available resources should be carefully evaluated.
Responses to graffiti must be thorough and consistent, as some
offenders may be highly opportunistic, adaptive, and tenacious.
Responses should include ways to monitor graffiti and address
changes in time, location, and methods of applying it.
19
20
Graffiti
Reducing Rewards to Offenders
§This “law of diminishing vandalism”is
that persistence in cleaning up pays off.
See Sloan-Howitt and Kelling (1990);
Scott (1989); Cheetham (1994); Clarke
(1978); and Governing (1994).
§§If graffiti cannot be removed quickly,
trains are taken out of service. For train
stations, graffiti is removed within 72
hours. Similar quick cleanups have
occurred in Philadelphia (Scott 1989).
In London, graffiti is cleaned from large
stations within 24 hours.
Rapid identification and removal of graffiti has been shown
to reduce its occurrence.§ This approach directly addresses the
motives of many offenders by reducing the notoriety associated
with graffiti’s visibility. The two-step process involves routine
monitoring to quickly spot graffiti and rapid removal of the graffiti.
In New York’s successful approach to transit graffiti, it was initially
removed within two hours of identification.§§ In St. Petersburg,
Florida, business owners are required to remove graffiti within 48
hours.16
1. Detecting graffiti rapidly and routinely. There are two primary
ways to gather information about the incidence and location
of graffiti: systematic monitoring of graffiti-prone locations,
and increased reporting. Both are used to rapidly detect graffiti
incidents; document the location and time of occurrences, and
content of graffiti; and to trigger responses.
• Monitoring graffiti-prone locations routinely. Quick
detection of graffiti provides better information for developing
effective interventions. A graffiti database can be used to track
incidents and illuminate patterns, identify chronic offenders
and/or interpret gang activities or plans encoded in graffiti.
Monitoring may include documenting graffiti through
photographs or video. In some places, graffiti provides a
barometer of gang activity and relations between gangs.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
Addressing Transit Graffiti in New York City
The experiences of the New York City Transit System illustrate varying approaches to
graffiti. Graffiti began to appear on subway trains in the 1960s; by 1970, it was a huge
problem. The public was fearful, and ridership on trains declined.
The motive for the graffiti was “getting up” and getting noticed; there were no indications
the graffiti was gang-related. Instead, the graffitists or taggers sought to build their reputation
through the sheer quantity of their graffiti. As competition among them increased, they
distinguished themselves through writing style, embellishment, graffiti size, and location–either
in unusual spots or in previously unmarked spots. One prolific vandal produced 10,000 graffiti
markings.
Despite the severity of its ongoing fiscal crisis, New York City adopted a variety of anti-graffiti
strategies in the 1970s: punishing offenders by making them clean up trains marked with graffiti;
using fencing with razor wires to protect the vast train yards; and developing materials to ease
graffiti removal, materials that were later found to be environmentally hazardous. The methods
all failed to substantially reduce the amount of graffiti.
In 1984, the city adopted a system to monitor trains and clean those marked with graffiti within
two hours; otherwise, they took the cars out of service. They also began to store clean trains in
highly secure yards that featured 24-hour-a-day work crews, enhanced lighting, routine fence
maintenance, and undercover police. The initiative focused on the most problematic times,
locations, and train lines; initially, all trains were monitored, but random checks were later
successfully used to maintain clean trains. In addition, repeat offenders were targeted for parental
contact and enhanced penalties.
In contrast to the earlier initiatives, this anti-graffiti effort began with a handful of trains (those
detected with graffiti) and built up to cover the entire system. Importantly, rather than focusing
on using the criminal justice system, this approach addressed the offenders’ underlying motives.
Immediately removing graffiti-marked trains from service severely limited the vandals' exposure.
21
22
Graffiti
§Police usually encourage citizens to call
911 regarding graffiti in progress; they
discourage citizens from confronting
offenders. Citizens can report graffiti not
in progress to hotlines.
To monitor graffiti-prone locations, Phoenix has used night vision
and digital cameras, while Philadelphia and Sydney have used
closed-circuit television (CCTV). In Philadelphia and on Los
Angeles buses, plainclothes officers have monitored graffiti. In other
jurisdictions, Neighborhood Watch and other groups systematically
monitor graffiti. In Lakewood, Colorado, citizens’ academy
graduates take graffiti reports, photograph graffiti and monitor
graffiti locations. In New South Wales, “graffiti spotters” have this
role. Employees such as bus drivers or maintenance workers can
immediately report vandalism through two-way radio.
• Increasing reporting of graffiti and offenders.§ Anonymous
graffiti hotlines, some operating 24 hours a day, collect
information about graffiti incidents. Communities have also
used cell phone reporting, voice mail, emergency cell service,
and connection to neighborhood watch groups.
Some jurisdictions pay graffiti reporters’ cell phone charges.
In London, people can use free telephones in transit stations
to report offenses. In other jurisdictions, transit riders are
encouraged to report graffiti and offenders. Numerous
jurisdictions offer a cash reward of $200 to $1,000 if a tip leads
to a conviction.
In some jurisdictions, graffiti reports may be suppressed due
to concerns about retaliation by gang members or taggers.
Widespread public participation in both open and anonymous
reporting usually addresses these concerns, but police should be
aware of this potential problem.
2. Removing graffiti rapidly. One of the most promising responses
to graffiti is consistently getting rid of it, and doing so quickly.
The removal process may vary substantially depending on the
type of graffiti tool and the type of material vandalized.§ Many
of the methods are time-consuming and can be quite expensive,
so a jurisdiction must be able to tap sufficient resources to fully
implement this approach. Some types of cleanup–including paint-
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
overs–may be affected by cold or wet weather. Removal may be timetargeted, such as during predawn hours, to further reduce exposure.
Rapid removal is key, and many jurisdictions try to remove graffiti
within 24 to 48 hours; in some obscure locations, such as drainage
ditches, graffiti may be removed less quickly.
There are four major types of removal or cover-ups:
• Painting over graffiti. Painting over graffiti appears to be the
most common and relatively cheapest method of removing it.
Although paint-overs can be expensive if recurring, the approach
is widely accessible, and usually requires no special skills or
technology. Some cities provide recycled paints for free; some
cities have cleanups funded by contributions; and in some cities,
businesses donate paint. Property owners victimized by graffiti
offenders often supply their own paint. They can match chips
of paint at home supply stores. Once they make a paint match,
they should keep a supply of the paint readily available. In areas
with heavy graffiti, property owners can unify colors (e.g., of alley
walls and fences) to make routine paint-overs easier. Painting
over graffiti may require the use of a sealer to prevent bleeding
through.
• Removing graffiti chemically. There are a variety of chemical
removal products available, but care should be taken in selecting
one. The use of some removal products on certain porous
surfaces may create a shadow of the graffiti. Paint companies
sometimes donate paint-removal supplies.
• Cleaning graffiti off. Depending on the surface and marking
agent, many surfaces can be cleaned of graffiti. Methods include
sandblasting with high-pressure hot-water jets–and sometimes
baking soda–to remove graffiti from cement and other unpainted
surfaces, although this, too, can be expensive and leave a shadow.
Lasers to remove graffiti are becoming available.
• Replacing signs, materials and other items vandalized.
Replacement is appropriate for materials from which graffiti
cannot be painted over, chemically removed, or cleaned.
23
§The type of surface graffiti is placed
on is a major factor because graffitiremoval products may damage some
surfaces. The type of marking agent is
also a factor: some paints are reversible.
There is a wide range of graffiti removal
products available, including chemical
sprays, aerosols, gels, and poultices.
Cleaners are either alkaline or acidic;
the latter can damage masonry, and
neutralizing techniques must be
incorporated when using either. Physical
removal methods include low- and
high-pressure water cleaning, often with
detergents, and sandblasting. Physical
removal is more expensive, and is
typically used for large areas where other
methods have failed.
24
Graffiti
The source of labor for removing graffiti may vary. Cleanup
squads may consist of volunteers, employees, or adjudicated
offenders. Graffiti removal may be coercive. A large number of
jurisdictions hold the property owner responsible for graffiti
removal. Sanctioning victims requires that they clean graffiti up
quickly or get fined.17 Citizens may get paint or physical assistance
from volunteers, if needed. Cities can use nuisance ordinances,
zoning codes, or graffiti ordinances to force owners to clean up
quickly, which may be necessary for absentee owners. Alternatively,
some cities clean up graffiti and then bill the owner. Some cities
do the first cleanup for free; the owner then has responsibility for
subsequent cleanups.
Numerous jurisdictions use graffiti removal as a court-ordered
sanction for offenders and other misdemeanants. In some
jurisdictions, such sanctions require victim restitution, reflecting a
restorative justice approach.
Increasing the Risk of Detection
Because graffiti offenders usually operate in darkness, where there
is little chance of being seen, few are apprehended. Increasing the
likelihood of their being detected increases the risk of apprehension.
3. Increasing natural observation of graffiti-prone locations.
The likelihood of detecting offenders can be increased by installing,
upgrading or maintaining lighting. (While most offenders operate
in the dark, additional lighting may actually attract graffiti in some
isolated or remote locations. An alternative is to install motionactivated lighting, which may signal unauthorized property use.)
In addition, shrubbery or trees that conceal areas can be removed.
Sight lines can be improved where vision is obscured in other ways.
Other methods to increase observation involve design, such as
eliminating blind spots of underpasses, or park paths, installing
windows or building parking lots within view of residences and
designing spacious areas with good visibility.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
4. Increasing formal observation of graffiti-prone locations.
Observation of graffiti-prone locations can be improved
systematically through use of police, security personnel,
Neighborhood Watch, and employees with other primary duties
(such as bus drivers, ticket agents, newsstand staff, lobby concierges,
and on-site/residential property managers). Such observation may
include the use of uniformed or undercover personnel or covert
surveillance, and may target fixed locations or mobile locations such
as buses and trains.
5. Increasing electronic security. Formal observation of graffitiprone locations can be carried out via electronic methods.
CCTV has shown promising evidence of reducing vandalism,
including graffiti.18 CCTV is widely used to deter potential
offenders, apprehend offenders in the act or after the fact, and
provide evidence in prosecutions. There are substantial up-front
and operating costs to CCTV, and decisions must be made as
to whether cameras will be actively or passively monitored, or
activated by motion detectors. If CCTV is to be used for evidence,
good picture quality, adequate lighting, and follow-up investigation
are necessary. If CCTV is to be used to apprehend offenders in
progress, it must be actively monitored. Signs warning of CCTV
are often posted to discourage offenders; such deterrence may
contribute to graffiti’s spread to other locations. There is also
evidence that CCTV’s crime prevention benefits may spread to
other locations.
CCTV will not be effective everywhere, but can be adapted. For
example, video surveillance with infrared technology has been used
on buses, while electronic surveillance robots monitor CCTV
screens in some jurisdictions, and emit warning alarms. Portable
CCTV can also be used, and dummy CCTV has been effectively
used to supplement the real thing. Other types of electronic security
include infrared beams, which are used around trains in London.
Use of CCTV may result in reduced vigilance, as electronic
surveillance may create a false sense of security. But the presence
of CCTV may also reassure citizens, and public support for it is
often high.
25
26
Graffiti
6. Conducting publicity campaigns. On their own, publicity
campaigns are of limited effectiveness. However, many publicity
efforts are combined with other strategies. A number of publicity
campaigns can be described as beautification efforts, consisting
of community cleanup days to eliminate graffiti, litter, and other
signs of disorder. In many jurisdictions, these cleanup days require
volunteers, but some may involve court-adjudicated offenders
who are working off community service time. In contrast to the
systematic graffiti removal described above, publicity campaigns are
usually one-time or episodic cleanups of specific areas.
An extension of the cleanup programs are ownership initiatives
such as Adopt-a-Block, Adopt-a-Bus, Adopt-a-Station, or other
efforts to maintain the “cared for” environment in public areas.
Some of the adoption schemes involve painting murals on transit
shelters, invoking a presumed conscience that deters graffiti
offenders from marring others’ artistic endeavors. It is assumed that
graffiti is easier to detect where no other graffiti exists, and cleaned
areas invoke a sense of ownership and responsibility among users of
the areas.
Other publicity efforts include posters to publicize anti-graffiti
efforts, public service announcements, flyers, brochures, and the
like. Publicity campaigns often include information on the harms
of graffiti, the costs of graffiti, how to detect a graffiti offender,
and how to report graffiti. This educational effort is often targeted
at parents, schools, businesses, civic groups, transit system users,
and/or the general public. Publicity and educational campaigns
have been shown to be effective in reducing graffiti when used to
publicize surveillance of vandalized buses; the effects even extended
beyond the crime prevention targets.19
Publicity campaigns often discourage the use of graffiti in
advertising and art exhibits, as well as media coverage of graffiti,
recognizing that such attention serves to further contribute to the
notoriety graffiti offenders seek. Care is taken to avoid glorifying
graffiti, and generating more of it as a result.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
27
Increasing the Difficulty of Offending
7. Vandal-proofing graffiti-prone locations. Graffiti offenders
can be thwarted by vandal-proofing vulnerable surfaces in
vulnerable areas, a process that often involves modifying surface
textures. Anti-graffiti coverings and surfaces make surfaces easy to
clean, difficult to write on, or both. There are six primary types:
• Paint-like products such as polyurethane-based coatings are
resistant to graffiti and easy to clean. These are suitable for
steel, concrete, and brickwork.§ Sealers on concrete prevent
absorption.
• Wash-off coatings–known as sacrificial coatings–are wax or
silicon applications on walls or buildings. When hot water
is applied, these coatings break down, allowing graffiti to be
washed off.§§
• Textured surfaces are not attractive targets for graffiti, as they
obscure legibility. Such surfaces are particularly difficult for
offenders to draw on or paint. Such surfaces include deeply
grooved surfaces and rough surfaces§§§ such as exposed rock,
rough cement, and dimpled stainless steel, like that used in
London telephone kiosks.
• Dark or colorful surfaces make graffiti less visible, thus deterring
offenders. Dark surfaces are more difficult to mark up, although
light paint can be used. Colorful or busy surfaces, such as
advertisements on the sides of buses, deflect graffiti.20 Flecked or
spotted wall surfaces also mask graffiti.
• Non-solid surfaces, such as open-grill storefront security screens
rather than solid panels, may deflect graffiti.
• Easily cleaned materials may be installed in highly vulnerable
areas. These include vitreous-enamel panels§§§§ or glazed
ceramic tiles from which graffiti washes off; wired glass that
can be cleaned with scrapers;§§§§§ polyester film over glass;
plastic laminates, which make for easier cleaning; and signs with
surfaces resistant to marker pens and spray paint.
§Some of these products may produce
toxic fumes in case of fire.
§§These coatings must be reapplied; the
surface dissolves when graffiti is cleaned
off.
§§§These surfaces are harder to mark, but
are difficult to clean.
§§§§These washable walls are used in
larger London train stations.
§§§§§The alternative, polycarbonate
surfaces become hazy.
28
Graffiti
§Some of these measures impose social
costs by making areas look like war
zones. Access controls with forbidding
appearances may be better left to isolated
areas.
Some materials cannot be effectively protected from graffiti.
Graffiti-prone surfaces can be replaced with standard-sized,
inexpensive materials. These include transparent, replaceable
glass or polycarbonate panels in bus shelters, and replaceable
polycarbonate covering signs.
8. Controlling access to graffiti-prone locations. Controlling
access to graffiti-prone locations physically bars offenders from
vulnerable areas. Means of access control include:
• Graffiti hoods to buffer freeway signs
• Metal baffles on sign poles, which work like squirrel baffles on
bird feeders
• Walls, fences, locked alleys, barriers, chasms, and rails,
sometimes supplemented by barbed wire
• Recessed walls
• Dense or thorny plants, or climbing vines
• Razor wire or jagged metal wrapped around sign poles.§
In some cases, signs have been moved out of reach of vandals,
while bus stops and other frequently vandalized targets have been
relocated.
Environmental design to limit access to graffiti surfaces can
best be incorporated into planning and construction, but may
also be adapted to existing structures. An example of effective
environmental design is the recessed walls of the Washington,
D.C., metro system; subway walls are physically separated from the
public.
Police or security patrols, guards and dogs may supplement access
control. Access to residential or commercial properties may be
restricted to those with resident or employee identification cards,
while visitor access may be controlled through entry phones.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
Much like environmental design, situational design reduces the
opportunity for graffiti. The absence of toilets, seating, fast food,
and lockers in transit stations effectively discourages potential
offenders from loitering. In Hong Kong, a limited life to transit
tickets encourages people to quickly move through stations before
their tickets expire, thus discouraging loitering. In Washington,
D.C., the subway system generally closes at midnight on weekdays
and somewhat later on weekends, thus limiting opportunities for
vandalism. Since graffiti often takes place late at night, limiting
hours reduces opportunities for vandalism at times when there are
typically few other riders or employees to deter the offender or
witness the offense.
9. Focusing on chronic offenders. Approaches that focus
exclusively on enforcement to control offenders have had little effect
on the amount of graffiti.21 Apprehending and prosecuting graffiti
offenders is difficult. Graffiti is not routinely reported to police, it
is difficult to catch offenders in the act, and may be impossible to
find witnesses or tangible evidence of graffiti offenses. In addition,
police have competing priorities, and sanctions against offenders
are often weak, consisting of community service and fines.
Some graffiti offenders are prolific; a small group typically accounts
for a large portion of all offenses. Efforts that focus on chronic
offenders show promise. Chronic offenders can be identified
through graffiti investigations. Since offenders tend to replicate
their graffiti, it has unique characteristics, like a signature, and
different incidents or tags can be linked to a single offender. Some
taggers practice their tags in notebooks or take photographs to
document their efforts; these may be used as evidence to link
offenders to graffiti incidents.
Some police conduct surveillance of known offenders and/or highrisk hot spots, collaborate with schools to detect offenders, and
monitor chronic offenders, particularly those on probation. Police
may use extensive intelligence databases to record information
about graffiti content, locations, and offenders. Such databases may
include photographs or video of graffiti, mug shots of offenders,
and maps of graffiti locations.
29
30
Graffiti
Responses With Limited Effectiveness
Numerous responses have been incorporated into efforts to control
graffiti. Most have not been carefully evaluated, and are thus of
unknown effectiveness. Any response can be effective if it increases
the difficulties of offending and reduces the rewards for it. Many
responses, however, are quite difficult to enforce.
10. Controlling graffiti tools. A number of jurisdictions have
tried to control the tools used for graffiti. Boston and other cities
have banned the sale of large, wide-tipped markers. In addition,
bans on spray paint sales to minors have been widely used in recent
years.§ Some jurisdictions require stores to be licensed for and to
limit spray paint sales, and require buyers to furnish their name and
address. In some jurisdictions, juvenile possession of spray paint or
large, indelible markers without supervision is a misdemeanor.
Efforts have been made to reduce shoplifting of spray paint by
placing stock away from exits and removing it from open displays.
Instead, stock is often stored behind counters, in storerooms or
in locked display cases. Some jurisdictions require stores to place
markers in full view of clerks. Industry efforts have also been
made to regulate graffiti tools. Spray valves can be modified, and
restricted-use caps limited, so that offenders cannot change caps.§§
Some jurisdictions encourage proper disposal of contractor painting
materials so that graffiti offenders cannot access them.
While there have been no evaluations of efforts that limit graffiti
tools, enforcing local ordinances that do so can be difficult.
Although restrictions on possession of supplies may provide
an additional enforcement tool, graffiti offenders are rarely
apprehended. In many tagging groups, one person carries the graffiti
supplies, making it more difficult to obtain the evidence that may
be necessary for a conviction.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
11. Channeling behavior into more acceptable activities. A lot
of anti-graffiti efforts have involved designating particular areas or
locations as legitimate places for graffiti.§§§ Graffiti walls or boards
are often obtained through contributions from businesses. While
artists may have to have a painting permit to participate, paint for
such projects is often contributed.
Similarly, some jurisdictions have commissioned murals to cover up
graffiti or improve the community’s appearance. These murals are
often located where graffiti has posed a problem. Graffiti offenders
appear to respect the artwork on such murals, but the surfaces can
be protected with anti-graffiti coating. Murals and walls showcase
artists’ work and may reduce incentives to vandalize. Similar
initiatives to divert offenders have included art classes or programs
for reformed offenders, some of which involve a contract or pledge
not to produce further graffiti. These efforts may be effective in
reducing the amount of graffiti in specific locations.
12. Providing alternative activities and services. A variety of
programs have been developed to address the needs of graffiti
offenders who are bored, unsupervised or unemployed. These
programs include mentoring, job training, counseling, tutoring,
and family services. Many of these programs focus on building
pride and self-esteem. Some help youth to leave gangs. Others
provide alternative activities, such as sports.
13. Involving youth in developing programs. Youth are often
involved in anti-graffiti efforts to increase their sense of ownership.
In Denmark, youth were involved in selecting the design and
colors of buses and bus platforms. Officials there also engage in
“alternative conflict solving,” and meet monthly with youth to
address hostility and improve communication with those who
are disaffected. Anti-graffiti posters for publicity campaigns are
designed through student competitions, and peer pressure is used to
discourage graffiti.
31
32
Graffiti
§Chicago has had such a ban since 1980.
§§Graffiti offenders prefer
interchangeable caps, allowing them to
combine thick and thin lines. Wide caps
or other caps from oven cleaners or spray
starch are especially desirable.
§§§Nugent (1998) describes a graffiti
wall in Washington, D.C’s Lafayette
Park; Coffield (1991) notes the painting
of a Southampton, England, garage.
Some anti-graffiti programs involve educating youth about the
harms and costs of graffiti. The youth-targeted message that
graffiti is uncool is conveyed through subway and bus posters, and
television and radio commercials. Sports figures may endorse the
message to add potency to it.
In some cases, former graffiti offenders create murals with antigraffiti messages, give public talks, counsel other offenders, and
organize graffiti cleanups.
14. Expanding applicable laws. A wide variety of laws have been
passed in cities and counties across the United States, providing
police and prosecutors with additional tools to charge and punish
offenders. In some cases, existing ordinances or statutes have been
applied in new ways, including enforcing civil trespassing laws;
applying nuisance abatement, which can force gangs to clean up
graffiti; labeling gangs as unincorporated associations, to pursue
criminal conspiracy charges; applying civil injunctions requiring
offenders to stay away from certain areas; enforcing anti-loitering
ordinances; and applying sanctions that enhance dispositions
or sentences for gang members. In addition, many jurisdictions
routinely use criminal mischief, malicious mischief, property
destruction, vandalism, and criminal trespass statutes or ordinances
in charging graffiti offenders.
15. Holding parents accountable. In some communities, efforts
are made to educate parents in recognizing signs of graffiti
offending. Parents are held accountable for juvenile offenders’
actions, and may be sanctioned with fines, cleanup costs and even
jail for failure to control or supervise their children. Structured
juvenile diversion programs may involve parents in meeting
conditions imposed on offenders.
16. Increasing sanctions for offenders. Across the United
States, jurisdictions have increased the sanctions against graffiti
offenders. Some sanctions are targeted specifically at juveniles.
For example, California suspends or defers the award of driver's
licenses for one year; offenders can do community service to
reduce the suspension time.
Responses to the Problem of Graffiti
Many jurisdictions use graffiti cleanup for community service to
avoid adjudication, as a condition of probation, or as part of a
disposition or sentence. Some communities have restorative justice
initiatives in which face-to-face victim-offender reconciliation
occurs, a contract is signed, and offenders pay restitution.
In some jurisdictions, students are suspended or expelled from
school for graffiti offenses. A large number of jurisdictions have
involved courts in treating graffiti incidents seriously, systematically
imposing fines, community service and even jail time on chronic
offenders.
17. Applying new technologies. A wide range of new anti-graffiti
technologies have not been tested, used extensively or evaluated.
Some may be effective in specific settings under certain conditions.
New anti-graffiti technologies include the following:
• Listening devices positioned at chronic graffiti locations. The
devices detect sounds such as spraying of paint cans, alerting
police to offenses.
• Motion detectors combined with sprinkler systems. Caltrans
used this technology in Orange County, California, but
offenders broke off sprinkler heads.
• Lasers for graffiti removal.
Since developing or purchasing new technologies may be quite
costly for most jurisdictions, such responses should be carefully
evaluated first. New technologies to respond to graffiti will likely
continue to become available.
18. Establishing juvenile curfews. Juvenile curfews have been
widely adopted in the United States to address a variety of juvenile
crime. For the most part, tenacious offenders can avoid detection,
and police agencies must invest a substantial amount of effort to
enforce curfews. While curfews may have some benefits in very
narrowly defined situations, their contribution to graffiti reduction
are unlikely to be substantial.
33
34
Graffiti
§In some limited studies of bathroom
graffiti (Mueller et al. 2000; Watson
1996), posting signs warning of
sanctions, containing positive messages
appealing to altruism, or conveying
neutral messages–“Please do not write
on these walls”–resulted in a decline in
graffiti.
19. Warning offenders. Many jurisdictions warn graffiti offenders
about the costs of being apprehended. Sydney found that warnings
of dire consequences do not work, and media attention glorifies
and reinforces graffiti.22 Most warnings are intended to increase
the perception of risk of detection and apprehension. Offenders,
however, tend to accurately perceive that risks of apprehension are
fairly low. Some warnings relate to increased sanctions for graffiti
offenses. If offenders do not believe the risk of apprehension is
high, they are unlikely to be concerned about the penalties for
offending.§ Warnings directed at chronic offenders may be more
effective than general warnings.
Appendix
35
Summary of Responses to Graffiti
The table below summarizes the responses to graffiti, the
mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions
under which they ought to work best, and some factors you should
consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that
you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify
each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective
strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law
enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or
solving the problem.
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
…locations are regularly
monitored
Requires commitment and
resources–efforts should not
be piecemeal; can involve
employees, police, citizens,
hotlines, and other means
Reducing Rewards to Offenders
1
20
Detecting
graffiti rapidly
and routinely
Permits rapid
removal
2
22
Removing
graffiti rapidly
Reduces time graffiti …removal is very quick
is visible, thus
and consistent
thwarting offenders'
objective of having
graffiti be widely seen
Removal may be expensive,
difficult and/or coercive (e.g.,
victims, as well as offenders,
may be sanctioned)
Increases risk of
detection
Efforts to improve lighting,
reduce shrubbery and improve
sight lines are most effective if
the area is not isolated for long
periods of time
Increasing the Risk of Detection
3
24
Increasing
natural
observation of
graffiti-prone
locations
…graffiti occurs in lowvisibility places
36
Graffiti
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
4
25
Increasing
formal
observation of
graffiti-prone
locations
Increases risk
of detection;
information can aid
investigations
…there are high-risk hot
spots
Can use undercover personnel,
other employees and electronic
means; easily available; can be
used on transit systems
5
26
Increasing
electronic
security
Increases risk of
detection
…offenders are targeting
large areas such as
transit lots
Can be cost-effective;
information can aid
investigations
6
26
Conducting
publicity
campaigns
Increases risk of
detection
…information is widely
disseminated, and risk
of detection increases
May contribute to increased
graffiti reports and extend
deterrent effect
…there are chronic
graffiti locations
Can be expensive if done
retroactively; offenders may
change their methods or targets;
may stimulate and challenge
offenders; some measures,
such as using grooved, slanted
or heavily textured walls, or
otherwise unappealing graffiti
surfaces, can be very effective;
may be unsightly
Increasing the Difficulty of Offending
7
27
Vandal-proofing Increases difficulty of
graffiti-prone
applying graffiti (may
locations
also decrease graffiti
visibility, reducing
motives); some
methods facilitate
removal
8
28
Controlling
access to
graffiti-prone
locations
Makes it more
difficult to access or
vandalize properties
…property or operations May be expensive, but
can support design
very effective; may best be
changes
incorporated into construction
and planning designs; most
effective if behavior is also
regulated, such as in apartment
complexes or transit stations
9
29
Focusing
on chronic
offenders
Increases risk of
detection of prolific
graffiti offenders
…there is a small group
of chronic offenders
Requires offender identification
and follow-up
Appendix
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
37
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
Makes it more
difficult for offenders
to get paint or
markers
…offenders are easily
deterred and merchants
comply
Difficult to enforce; offenders
can seek tools elsewhere; tools
are easily accessed, transported,
and hidden
Responses with Limited Effectiveness
10
30
Controlling
graffiti tools
11
31
Channeling
Intended to provide
behavior into
creative outlets
more acceptable
activities
…offenders are
artistically motivated
Graffiti boards and walls can
be placed in highly visible
locations; they appear to attract
little vandalism; they may not
attract the target group
12
31
Providing
alternative
activities and
services
Intended to engage
and provide
supervision to youth
….offenders are jobless,
bored, or unsupervised
Difficult to identify and involve
chronic offenders; programs
may be expensive
13
31
Involving youth
in developing
programs
Intended to engage
and provide
supervision to youth
…offenders are not
highly invested in the
graffiti lifestyle
Little deterrent effect for
chronic offenders
14
32
Expanding
applicable laws
Increases threat of
punishment to deter
offenders
…laws target particular
problems
Can be time-consuming;
offenders believe they won’t
get caught, so they don't worry
about punishment
15
32
Holding parents Involves parents in
accountable
controlling offenders’
behavior
….offenders are juveniles Offenders can often hide
behavior from parents; parents
may have little control
16
32
Increasing
sanctions for
offenders
…combined with
investigative
Raises the risks
associated with
graffiti
enforcement activities
Because apprehension
of offenders is low, may
have little deterrent effect;
sanctions should be applied
systematically; requires
collaboration with prosecutors
and judges; can consist of fines,
community service, or loss of
driver’s license
38
Graffiti
Response
No.
Page
No.
Response
How It Works
Works Best If…
Considerations
17
33
Applying new
technologies
Reduces motives,
…the technology fits the May be expensive and require
deflects or diverts
problem
substantial adaptation or
offenders, or increases
experimentation
detection
18
33
Establishing
juvenile curfews
Increases the risk of
detection for certain
offenders
…graffiti typically
occurs late at night and
offenders are juveniles
Difficult to enforce
19
34
Warning
offenders
Intended to increase
fear of detection
…detection is increased
and consequences are
unpleasant
Apprehension of offenders
is low; warnings of dire
consequences may not be
effective
Endnotes
Endnotes
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Castleman (1982); Sloan-Howitt and Kelling (1990).
Coffield (1991).
Wilson (1988).
Ley and Cybrinsky (1974); Klein (1995).
Coffield (1991).
Gomez (1993); Ferrell (1995).
Gomez (1993).
Wilson (1987).
San Diego Police Department (2000).
Clarke (1978); Coffield (1991).
Wilson (1987).
Bridgeport Police Department (1999).
San Diego Police Department (2000).
Sampson and Scott (2000).
Wilson (1988).
Governing (1994).
Nugent (1998).
Poyner (1988); Tilley (1998).
Poyner (1988).
Eastel and Wilson (1991).
Gomez (1993).
Wilson (1988).
39
References
References
Beatty, J. (1990). “Zap! You’ve Been Tagged!” Time, Sept. 10, p. 43.
Bridgeport Police Department (1999). Problem-Solving Partnership
Grant Progress Report to the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (August). Bridgeport (Connecticut):
Bridgeport Police Department.
Butterfield, F. (1988). “On New York Walls, the Fading of Graffiti.”
New York Times, May 6, p. B1.
Castleman, C. (1982). Subway Graffiti in New York. London: MIT
Press.
Cheetham, D. (1994). Dealing With Vandalism–A Guide to
the Control of Vandalism. London: Construction Industry
Research and Information Association.
Chula Vista Police Department (1999). City of Chula Vista Recent
Graffiti Trends. Chula Vista (California): Chula Vista Police
Department.
Clarke, R. (ed.) (1978). Tackling Vandalism. Home Office Research
Study, No. 47. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Coffield, F. (1991). Vandalism and Graffiti: The State of the Art.
London: Calhouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Cohen, S. (1973). “Property Destruction: Motives and Meanings.”
In C. Ward (ed.), Vandalism. London: The Architectural Press.
Eastel, P., and P. Wilson (1991). Preventing Crime on Transport:
Rail, Buses, Taxis, Planes. Canberra: Australian Institute of
Criminology.
Ferrell, J. (1995). “Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control and Resistance.”
Youth and Society 27(1):73–89.
Gomez, M. (1993). “The Writing on Our Walls: Finding
Solutions Through Distinguishing Graffiti Art From Graffiti
Vandalism.” University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
26(3):633–708.
41
42
Graffiti
Governing (1994). “Graffiti.” August, p. 42.
Kennedy, D. (1997). “Pulling Levers: Chronic Offenders, HighCrime Settings and a Theory of Prevention.” Valparaiso
University Law Review 31:449–483.
Kennedy, D., A. Braga and A. Piehl (1997). “(Un)Known Universe:
Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston.” In D. Weisburd
and T. McEwen (eds.), Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention.
Monsey (New York): Criminal Justice Press.
Klein, M. (1995). The American Street Gang. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ley, D., and R. Cybrinsky (1974). “Urban Graffiti As Territorial
Markers.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers
64:491–501.
Mueller, M., J. Moore, A. Doggett, and D. Tingstrom (2000).
“The Effectiveness of Contingency-Specific and ContingencyNonspecific Prompts in Controlling Bathroom Graffiti.”
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33(1):89–92.
Nugent, H. (1998). “Gang Graffiti.” Addressing Community Gang
Problems: A Practical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Assistance.
Otto, A., K. Maly and D. Schismenos (2000). “Cracking Down
on Gangs With GIS.” In N. La Vigne and J. Wartell (eds.),
Successful Crime Mapping Case Studies, Vol. 2. Washington,
D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Poyner, B. (1988). “Video Cameras and Bus Vandalism.” Journal of
Security Administration 11:44–51.
Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other
Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services.
San Diego Police Department (2000). “Mid-City Graffiti Project.”
Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in
Problem-Oriented Policing.
References
Scott, D. (1989). “Graffiti Wipeout.” FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin (December):10–14.
Sloan-Howitt, M., and G. Kelling (1990). “Subway Graffiti in New
York City: ‘Getting Up’ vs. ‘Meaning It and Cleaning It.’”
Security Journal 1(3):131–136.
Tilley, N. (1998). “Evaluating the Effectiveness of CCTV
Schemes.” In C. Norris, J. Moran and G. Armstrong (eds.),
Surveillance, Closed Circuit Television and Social Control.
Brookfield (Vermont): Ashgate Publishing Co.
Watson, S. (1996). “A Prompt Plus Delayed Contingency
Procedure for Reducing Bathroom Graffiti.” Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis 29(1):121–124.
Wilson, P. (1988). “Preventing Vandalism and Graffiti.” Journal of
Security Administration 11(2):28–35.
________(1987). “Research Brief No. 6: Graffiti and Vandalism
on Public Transport.” Trends and Issues. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
43
About the Author
About the Author
Deborah Lamm Weisel
Deborah Lamm Weisel is an assistant research professor and
the director of police research in the Department of Political
Science and Public Administration at North Carolina State
University. Her portfolio includes research on police responses to
crime problems such as gangs, street drugs and graffiti, as well as
community policing, safety and security in public housing, and
repeat victimization from burglary and robbery. Her work has
been published in Justice Quarterly, Public Management, the NIJ
Journal, and the American Journal of Police. She holds a doctorate
in political science/public policy analysis from the University of
Illinois at Chicago.
45
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides series:
1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3
2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0
3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana
Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7
5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5
6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1
8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-07-X
9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8
10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-09-6
11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X
12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8
13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6
14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4
15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-14-2
ISBN: 1-932582-15-0
16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.
17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-16-9
18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-17-7
19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
ISBN: 1-932582-27-4
20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.
Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3
21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003.
47
48
Graffiti
22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-30-4
23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony
A. Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2
24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne.
2004. ISBN: 1-932582-33-9
25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-35-3
26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J.
Peak. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-36-3
27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-39-8
28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-42-8
29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-43-6
30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
ISBN: 1-932582-50-9
31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and
Mike Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2
32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-46-0
33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson.
2005. ISBN: 1-932582-47-9
34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005.
35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005.
ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7
36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B.
Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6
37. Juvenile Runaways. Kelly Dedel. 2006. ISBN: 1932582-56-8
38. The Exploitation of Trafficked Women. Graeme R.
Newman. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-59-2
39. Student Party Riots. Tamara D. Madensen and John E. Eck.
2006. ISBN: 1-932582-60-6
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
40. People with Mental Illness. Gary Cordner. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-63-0
41. Child Pornography on the Internet. Richard Wortley and
Stephen Smallbone. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-65-7
42. Witness Intimidation. Kelly Dedel. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-67-3
43. Burglary at Single-Family House Construction Sites.
Rachel Boba and Roberto Santos. 2006.
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2
44. Disorder at Day Laborer Sites. Rob Guerette. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-72-X
45. Domestic Violence. Rana Sampson. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-74-6
46. Thefts of and from Cars on Residential Streets and
Driveways. Todd Keister. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-76-2
47. Drive-By Shootings. Kelly Dedel. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-77-0
48. Bank Robbery. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-78-9
49. Robbery of Convenience Stores. Alicia Altizio and
Diana York. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-79-7
50. Traffic Congestion Around Schools.
Nancy G. La Vigne. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-82-7
51. Pedestrian Injuries and Fatalities. Justin A. Heinonen and
John E. Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-83-5
52. Bicycle Theft. Shane D. Johnson, Aiden Sidebottom,
and Adam Thorpe. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-87-8
53. Abandoned Vehicles. Michael G. Maxfield. 2008.
ISBN: 1-932582-88-6
54. Spectator Violence in Stadiums. Tamara D. Madensen and
John E. Eck. 2008. ISBN: 1-932582-89-4
49
50
Graffiti
Response Guides series:
1. The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns.
Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X
2. Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should
You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004.
ISBN: 1-932582-41-X
3. Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety
Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 2005.
ISBN: 1-932582-55-X
4. Video Surveillance of Public Places. Jerry Ratcliffe. 2006
ISBN: 1-932582-58-4
5. Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns.
Emmanuel Barthe. 2006 ISBN: 1-932582-66-5
6. Sting Operations. Graeme R. Newman with assistance of
Kelly Socia. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-84-3
7. Asset Forfeiture. John L. Worall. 2008
ISBN: 1-932582-90-8
Problem-Solving Tools series:
1. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory
Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-19-3
2. Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A.
Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7
3. Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police ProblemSolving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-49-5
4. Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm Weisel.
2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1
5. Partnering with Businesses to Address Public Safety
Problems. Sharon Chamard. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-62-2
6. Understanding Risky Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke and John E.
Eck. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-75-4
7. Implementing Responses to Problems. Rick Brown and
Michael S. Scott. 2007. ISBN: 1-932582-80-0
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
8. Using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design in
Problem-Solving. Diane Zahm. 2007.
ISBN: 1-932582-81-9
9. Enhancing the Problem-Solving Capacity of Crime Analysis
Units. Matthew B. White. 2008.
ISBN: 1-932582-85-1
Special Publications:
Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers in 60 Small Steps,
Ronald V. Clarke and John Eck, 2005.
ISBN:1-932582-52-5
Policing Terrorism: An Executive's Guide,
Graeme R. Newman and Ronald V. Clarke, 2008
Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
Problem-Specific Guides
Child Abuse and Neglect in the Home
Transient Encampments
Street Robbery
Stolen Goods Markets
Thefts from Cafés and Bars
Aggressive Driving
Theft of Scrap Metal
Problem-Solving Tools
Displacement
Response Guides
Assigning Police Officers to Schools
Dealing with Crime and Disorder in Urban Parks
Special Publications
Effective Policing and Crime Prevention: A Problem-Oriented
Guide for Mayors, City Managers, and County Exectives
Intelligence Analysis and Problem-Solving
51
52
Graffiti
For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police
series and other COPS Office publications, call the COPS Office
Response Center at 800.421.6770, via e-mail at askCOPSRC@
usdoj.gov, or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers!
Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website at
www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help you deal
more effectively with crime and disorder in your community,
including :
• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides
• Interactive training exercises
• Online access to research and police practices
• Online problem analysis module.
Designed for police and those who work with them to address
community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great resource in
problem-oriented policing.
Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, U.S. Department of Justice.
This problem-oriented guide for police addresses effective responses
to the problem of graffiti—the wide range of markings, etchings, and
paintings that deface public or private property. In recent decades,
graffiti has become an extensive problem, spreading from the largest
cities to other locales. This guide provides law enforcement with
a series of questions to consider when analyzing their local graffiti
problem and reviews responses to the problem based on evaluative
research and police practice.
For More Information:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
To obtain details on COPS programs, call the
COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770
Visit COPS online at www.cops.usdoj.gov
Updated May 2009
e07042448
ISBN:1-932582-08-8